FIRES AT SEA.-These terrible calamities appear to be largely on the increase.

The loss

of life too often, and the destruction of property always, renders such fires very important from an ins. point of view. [FIRES ON BOARD SHIP.] [MARITIME CASUALTIES.] [SHIPS, INS. OF.] [SHIPWRECKS.]

FIRES AT THEATRES.-See THEATRES.

FIRES CAUSED BY ACCIDENT.-Fires caused by Accident are here distinguished from those caused either by Negligence or Design, which are spoken of under separate heads. A certain per-centage of fires will always result from accident, as defined under ACCIDENT in this work; what that per-centage may be we shall have occasion to consider under FIRES AND FIRE INS., STATISTICS OF. It is certain that, after deducting the fires caused wilfully, by far the larger proportion remaining are the result of negligence in some of its multitudinous forms; but still accidents are inevitable: and it may be considered that no amount of care will render ins. altogether unnecessary.

1708.-By the 6 Anne, c. 58, it is provided that no action, suit, or process whatever should be had, maintained, or prosecuted against any person, in whose house or chamber any fire should, after 1st May, 1708, accidentally begin; nor any recompense be made by such person for any damage suffered or occasioned thereby, any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. This provision was to remain in force 3 years. 1711.-The preceding Act was made perpetual by 10 Anne, c. 24, s. I.

1772.-By the 12 Geo. III. c. 73, sec. 37, a similar exemption from consequences was enacted.

1774. By sec. 86 of the former Metropolitan Building Act-14 Geo. III. c. 78—the exemption of 1708 is again enacted, and the exemption extended to any "stable, barn, or other building, or on whose estate" any such accidental fire shall happen. This portion of the Act remains unrepealed, and has been held now to operate as a public Act, and not to be confined in its operations to the districts to which the Act orig. applied. The Act does not apply where the fire is lighted intentionally, and fire happens to result.-Filliter v. Phippard, 1847.

1804.-By the Code Ñapoléon (sec. 1733), tenants of houses are answerable in case of fire, unless they can prove that the fire happened by accident or superior force (force majeur), or by faulty construction, or that the fire was communicated from a neighbouring house.

1847.-The Towns Police Clauses Act of this year-10 & 11 Vict. c. 89-contains the following:

31. If any chimney accidentally catch or be on fire within the said limits, the person occupying or using the premises in which such chimney is situated shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 10s. Provided always that such forfeiture shall not be incurred if such person prove to the satisfaction of the Justice before whom the case is heard that such fire was in no wise owing to omission, neglect, or carelessness of himself or servant.

1865.-The Metropolitan Fire Brigade Act of this year-28 & 29 Vict. c. 90— leaves the exemption of 1708, as amended in 1774, still in force.

FIRES CAUSED BY LIGHTNING.- These will be spoken of in detail under LIGHTNING. It is sufficient here to state that fire ins. pol. usually cover this risk. [EXPLOSIONS, subheading Gunpowder.]

FIRES CAUSED BY NEGLIGENCE.-So far as can be gathered from the traditions of early nations, a principle has prevailed that whoever caused damage to life or property by fire should be punished in proportion to the degree of negligence exhibited; and further that he should be compelled to repair the damage to the extent of his means. Moses estab. a law of this kind, which is believed to have been but the counterpart of that in force among the early Egyptians.

We propose to review the authorities upon the subject, as forming part of our hist. of FIRE PROTECTION.

By the Common Law of England, every master of a house or chamber was bound so to keep his fire as to prevent it from occasioning injury to his neighbours and others. If a fire broke out in a house and burnt the adjacent dwelling, or did other damage, the master of the house in which the fire began was liable to make compensation for the injury, and it was not necessary to prove negligence, which the law presumed. Thus, "If my fire by misfortune burns the goods of another man, he shall have his action on the case against me." "If a fire breaks out suddenly in my house, I not knowing it, and it burns my goods, and also my neighbour's house, he shall have his action on the case against me. 'So, if the fire is caused by a servant or guest, or any person who enters the house with the consent of the paterfamilias; but not when kindled by a stranger who enters his house against his will." And the custom extended not only to fires commencing in dwelling-houses, but also to a fire lighted in an adjoining close.— Comyn's Digest, quoted by Mr. Bunyon in Assu. Mag. (See 1851.) How far Common Law has been modified by the Statute and Case Law we have next to examine.

66

1707. By the 6 Anne, c. 58, it was recited-" And whereas fires often happen by the negligence and carelessness of servants," and further, that if any menial or other servant through negligence or carelessness should fire or cause to be fired any dwelling-house or out-house, such servant being thereof lawfully convicted by the oath of one or more credible witness, he should forfeit the sum of £100, to be paid to the churchwardens of the parish. In default, 18 months in the workhouse.

VOL. IV.

2

1708. The Common Council of Lond. caused to be reprinted the clause of the preceding Act in extenso, and circulated in the City. Stow says, "These sad accidents in the City by fire, occasioned oftentimes by the negligence of servants taking tobacco, or not putting out their candles, or leaving live embers in dangerous places, or otherwise," moved the Parl. to the passing the said Act.

1754.-A case, apparently not hypothetical, is given by Sir James Balfour in his Practicks of the Law of Scotland, designated "A Merrie Questioun anent the Burning of a Miln"- which affords an excellent specimen of the old Lowland Scotch language, in add. to illustrating the law in regard to fires caused by negligence :

Gif it happin that ony man be passand in the King's gait or passage, drivand befoir him twa sheip festnit and knit togidder, be chance ane horse, havand ane sair bak, is lying in the said gait, and ane of the sheip passis be the ane side of the horse, and the uther sheip be the uther side, swa that the band quhairwith they are bund tuich or kittle his sair bak, and he thairby movit dois arise, and caryis the said sheip with him heir and thair, until at last he cumis and enteris in ane miln havand ane fire, without ane keipar, and skatteris the fire, quhairby the miln, horse, sheip, and all is brunt ; Quæritur, Quha sall pay the skaith? Respondetur, The awner of the horse sall pay the sheip, because his horse sould not have been lying in the King's hie streit, or commoun passage; and the millar sall pay for the miln and the horse, and for all uther damnage and skaith, because he left ane fire in the miln without ony keipar."

1772.—By 12 Geo. III. c. 73, a fine of £100, or in default imprisonment with hard labour for 18 months, is imposed upon servants causing fires by negligence.

1774. By the Metropolitan Building Act-14 Geo. III. c. 78—the penalty last named was re-enacted in the following form:

And whereas fires often happen by the negligence and carelessness of servants, be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that if any menial or other servant or servants, through negligence or carelessness, shall fire or cause to be fired any dwelling-house, or out-house, or houses, or other buildings, within the limits aforesaid or elsewhere in the Kingdom of Gt. Brit., such servant or servants being thereof lawfully convicted, by the oath of one or more creditable witness or witnesses, made before two or more of H. M. Justices of the Peace, shall forfeit and pay the sum of £100 unto the churchwardens or overseers of such parish where such fire shall happen; to be distributed amongst the sufferers by such fire in such proportions as to the said churchwardens shall seem just; and in case of default, or refusal to pay the same, immediately after such conviction, the same being lawfully demanded, that then, and in such case, such servant or servants shall, by warrant under the hands and seals of two or more of H. M.'s Justices of the Peace, be committed to the common gaol or house of correction, as the said Justices think fit, for the space of 18 months. there to be kept to hard labour.

1789.-In the Reformed Criminal Code of Tuscany, promulgated this year, there is the following:

But when the fire shall be the consequence, not of fraud, but of negligence, the punishment shall not exceed that of banishment or confinement; and when the fault shall be found to be but trifling, or very trifling indeed, it shall no longer be treated as a criminal, but a civil matter.

1804. By the Code Napoléon (art. 1383) it is declared: "Every one is responsible for the damage of which he is the cause, not only by his own act, but also by his negligence or by his imprudence." While further (art. 1284): "A person is responsible, not only for the injury which is caused by his own act, but also for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom he is bound to answer, or by things which he has under his care." As a result of this law, nearly everybody insures the property of his surrounding neighbours, as well as his own; hence some properties become insured many times over, to the advantage, in this case, of the ins. offices.

1837.-In Vaughan v. Manlove, before the English Courts this year, it was held, that an action for damages lies against a person for so negligently constructing and keeping a hayrick on the extremity of his land, that, in consequence of its spontaneous ignition, his neighbour's house is burnt down. (3 Bing. N.C. 478.)

1847.-Under the Towns Police Clauses Act-10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, sec. 31-a penalty of 10s. is imposed for carelessness, whereby any chimney shall accidentally catch fire. [CHIMNEYS.]

This year there arose the case of Filliter v. Phippard, wherein the facts were as follow: The plaintiff and defendant were owners of adjoining lands. The defendant lighted a fire in one of his closes at a time when, by reason of the state of the wind and weather, it was dangerous to do so. The fire extended to the plaintiff's close, and destroyed the hedges, gates, etc.:-Held, that the defendant was not relieved from liability by the stat. 6 Anne, c. 13, and 14 Geo. III. c. 78, which must be taken to apply to fires which are the result of chance, or are incapable of being traced to any cause; but not to fires which, although they may be accidental as contradistinguished from wilful, are occasioned by negligence or want of reasonable care. (17 L.J. Q. B. 89.)

1851.-In vol. of Assu. Mag. is a paper contributed by Mr. C. J. Bunyon, M.A., On the Liability of the Occupier of a Tenement for Damage done to that of a Neighbour, by Fire kindled through his own or his servant's negligence, wherein the legal authorities are critically examined, and the law upon the subject stated. This learned writer, towards the conclusion of his paper, says: "Hence it appears that although a man may have insured his own property to its full value, he may yet become a loser to a considerable extent, in the event of a fire occurring, by being compelled to indemnify his neighbour. Whether the ins. offices may ever choose to enforce this equity in their own favour will be a question for their own decision, and one which will probably be viewed in a mercantile rather than a legal right; but as there is nothing to prevent a private individual

from exercising this right, it may become a question whether the liability is not one which may itself be guarded against by ins." We have seen that in France it is so guarded against.

1852.-The "Instructions" to the agents of the Protection Fire, of Hartford, U.S., promulgated by the Actuary of the Co., Mr. Mark Howard, this year, offer the following practical obs. regarding negligence:

The office justly relies upon a prudent and careful oversight of the insured premises in all cases, and the rates of prem. are graduated, accordingly, in view of the ordinary hazards; but no rate of prem. is adequate to the extraordinary hazard of habitual gross negligence. It may, however, be doubted whether any degree of mere carelessness will bar a claim under a pol. of ins., according to several recent decisions in the Courts. Such decisions can only proceed upon the supposition that the character of the applicant for prudence and care has been duly weighed when the risk was offered; and that the insurer is thereby debarred from any such after-plea as fully as he would be from objecting to the extra-hazardous occupation, or unsafe construction of a building, which had been regularly surveyed by his own agent. You will perceive at once the important bearing which this construction of the contract of ins. has upon the duty of the agent. An accurate and ready judgment as to the character of the applicant for sobriety and prudence becomes indispensable.

1856.-Mr. James Braidwood, then Supt. of the London Fire Brigade, read before the So. of Arts a paper: Fires: the Best Means of Preventing and Arresting Them, with a Few Words on Fireproof Structures. In dealing with the causes of fires, he placed first and foremost: "Inattention to the use of Fire and Lights," on which he said :

The opportunities for inattention to fires and lights are so various that it is impossible to notice the whole. Incautiously approaching window and bed curtains with a light and airing linen before the fire are almost daily causes of fire in Lond.; and some of the most distressing cases of loss of life have originated from these and similar causes. Children playing with fire is also another constant cause of fires and loss of life. The dresses of females taking fire adds very much to the list of lives lost by fire, if it does not exceed all the other causes put together. Taking off the burning coals from a fire and laying them on the hearth also causes fires occasionally. Reading in bed by candle light is another source of the same evil. A very serious ann. loss is also caused by a want of due care in hanging up and removing goods in linen-drapers' shop-windows when the gas is burning. Flues taking fire often result in mischief, and it is believed that many serious fires have arisen from this cause, which can hardly be called accidental: as, if flues are properly constructed, kept moderately clean and fairly used, they cannot take fire.

It is seen by the foregoing that simple and ordinary causes, such as with reasonable care might be easily averted, are really those which produce the greater mischief.

1858.-In Syred v. Carruthers injury done to goods pawned, by a fire upon the premises of a pawnbroker not affirmatively shown to have occurred through the default, neglect, or wilful misbehaviour of the pawnbroker, does not authorize a Justice of the Peace to give satisfaction to the pawner (under 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 99, s. 24): there being no prima facie presumption that such fire is owing to the default, neglect, or misbehaviour of the owner of the premises. (27 L.J. M.C., 273.)

1860. In the case of Hynes v. MacFarlan, before the Canadian Courts this year, it was held, that a person setting fire to grass upon his land at an improper and unfitting time, was by that mere fact, which is construed into negligence, responsible for the loss thereby of a threshing machine, which had been brought on his land to thresh his grain. [9 Lower Canada, Q. B. Appeal Side, 502.]

1874.-Prof. A. P. Peabody, D.D., contributed to the International Review, January this year, an interesting art.: "Fires in American Cities," wherein occurs the following

passage:

There should be in the next place, in the legal provisions connected with ins., an inevitable penalty on carelessness: which, however free from bad intent, is always blameworthy, and merits at least a pecuniary mulct. We doubt whether it would be well to go to the extreme length of the French law, which deprives of indemnity the person on whose premises a fire originates. Such a provision would undoubtedly prevent half of our fires; but with us it would leave some very hard cases, while in France fires are of infrequent occurrence, and are commonly extinguished with slight damage, so that ins. is sought mainly with reference to the rare contingency of an extensive conflagration. But would any essential wrong be done, were the person on whose premises a fire commenced permitted to recover not more than two-thirds of the value of the property consumed? An exception might be made in cases in which it could be clearly proved that the fire originated from a cause that could not have been forescen and prevented; but the presumption should be of carelessness in the absence of express evidence to the contrary. The negligence or folly of employés or servants should not be accepted as a plea in abatement of the penalty. In all other matters a man is responsible for the mistakes and failures of those in his service, and this rule is founded in equity; for in whatever may compromise the well-being of those around him, a man is bound to exercise personal circumspection and vigilance, unless he can delegate his charge to safe agents. When a servant of well-known stupidity and shiftlessness, who would not be trusted with the delivery of a message or the removal of a porcelain vase, crams a stove or furnace with fuel, and so opens or closes drafts or registers as to make the combustion of the nearest woodwork inevitable, the blame belongs wholly to the master or mistress, who is no more justified in committing heating apparatus to the charge of a dolt or a fool than in giving loaded firearms to the keeping of an infant or an idiot.

The argument here is sound. We think the rendering of the French law hardly admits of the construction put upon it. A man there is legally liable for all damage done to a neighbour's premises by a fire originating on his own; but this risk he may cover by ins.

This subject will be further discussed in some of its aspects under FIRES, CAUSES OF (GENERAL); FRANCE, sub-heading Fire; LOCOMOTIVE ENGINES, FIRES FROM; and NEGLIGENCE.

FIRES CAUSED WILFULLY.-Under the Romans wilful fire-raising was punishable with death. It had been so under the law of Moses; and appears to have been so under the

still earlier law of the Egyptians. The practice of wilfully firing buildings appears to have been very common with the ancient Romans; and those found guilty of it were burned to death, enveloped in the Tunica molesta: a garment made of paper, flax, or tow, and smeared over with pitch, bitumen or wax; so that when brought to the place of execution, and the fire lighted, there was no chance of their escaping! [ARSON.Ĵ

1240. In our art. FIRE INS., HIST. OF, under this date, we have shown the operation of the Custom of Furnes, as it was designated, as rendered by the law promulgated by Thomas Count of Flanders and Johanna his Countess. The whole of the property of the culprit appears to have been forfeited on discovery, and he banished. His property was first applied in restitution to sufferers.

1429.-An Act of Henry VI. declared that "If any threaten, by casting bills, to burn a house, if money be not laid in a certain place, and do after burn the house, such burning shall be adjudged high treason."

1545.-By the 37th of Henry VIII. c. 6, was inflicted the "pains of death" on all found guilty of certain crimes, amongst which were the secret burning of frames of timber prepared and made by the owners thereof ready to be set up and edified for houses; burning of wains and carts loaden with coals or other goods; burning of heaps of wood, cut, felled, and prepared for making coals; cutting off the ears of the king's subjects, and divers other kinds of offences against property or the person.

1722. The 9 Geo. I. c. 22, threw the damages sustained by owners from (inter alia) the "setting fire to any house, barn, or out-house, hovel, cock, mow, or stack of corn, hay, or wood, which shall be committed or done by any offender or offenders against the Act," upon the Hundred wherein such offence was committed, upon notice being given within 2 days after the occurrence of the offence.

1763.- By 4 Geo. III. c. 14, it is enacted (sec. 10): "And, for the better preventing mischiefs that may happen by fire, and to deter and hinder ill-minded persons from wilfully setting their house or houses, or other buildings, on fire, with a view to gaining themselves the ins. money, whereby the lives and fortunes of many families are lost,' that the offices might expend the money insured in rebuilding or reinstating the premises "as far as the same will go." This could be done on request of persons interested; or on suspicion of fraud. This power has since been incorp. into the conditions of fire ins. pol., and has frequently been of value to cos. in dealing with suspicious claims. For the full clause see FIRE INS., HIST. OF, under this date.

1789.--In the Reformed Criminal Code of Tuscany, promulgated this year, there is the following:

45. Incendiaries, that is to say, those through whose fraud or malice a fire shall happen, shall be condemned to public labour for a time, and even for life: in proportion not only to the loss they shall occasion, but likewise to the risk of having occasioned a greater one than was intended in the execution of their very atrocious design.

1803. The stat. 43 Geo. III. c. 58, after reciting that certain heinous offences, committed "with intent, by burning, to destroy or injure the buildings and other property of H.M.'s subjects, or to prejudice persons who had become insurers of or upon the same, had been of late frequently committed, and that no adequate means had been hitherto provided for the prevention and punishment of such offences, enacts, that, if any person or persons shall wilfully, maliciously, and unlawfully, set fire to any house, barn, granary, hop-oast, malt-house, stable, coach-house, out-house, mill, warehouse, or shop, whether such house, etc., shall then be in the possession of the person or persons so setting fire to the same, or in the possession of any other person or persons, or of any body corporate, with intent thereby to injure or defraud H.M., or any of H. M.'s subjects, or any body corp.,-the person or persons so offending, their counsellors, aiders, and abettors, knowing of and privy to such offence, should be, and were thereby declared to be, felons, and should suffer death, as in cases of felony, without benefit of clergy.

1810.-Under the Penal Code of China at this date, according to the authority of Sir Geo. Thos. Staunton, Bart., F. R.S., the punishment of a person who accidentally set fire to his house was 40 blows; but if the fire spread to the gate of an Imperial Palace, then death. Wilfully setting fire to one's own house 100 blows; to any other house, private or public, death.

1812. By the 52 Geo. III. c. 130-An Act for the more effectual punishment of persons destroying the properties of H.M.'s subjects, and enabling owners of such properties to recover damages for injury sustained-it was enacted that every person who should wilfully and maliciously burn any buildings, erections, or engines, used in the way of trade or for storing merchandize and other effects, should upon conviction be punished with death without benefit of clergy."

1827. By the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 30-An Act for consolidating and amending the Laws in England relative to malicious injuries to property-the maliciously setting fire to any church, chapel, house, or certain specified buildings, also to coal-mines, and ships, was still punishable by death.

1837.-By 7 Wm. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 89-An Act to amend the Laws relating to burning or destroying buildings and ships—it was again enacted that the unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to inhabited dwelling-houses should be punished with death;

while the wilfully setting fire to churches, chapels, warehouses and manufacturing and trade buildings, as also to ships, was punishable with transportation, or imprisonment. 1846.-There was enacted 9 & 10 Vict. c. 25-An Act for preventing malicious injuries to persons and property by fire, or by explosive or destructive substances. It deals first with blowing down buildings by explosive substances maliciously, which it makes a felony [FIRE PROTECTION], and then proceeds:

VII. And be it enacted, That whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously by any overt act attempt to set fire to any building, vessel, or mine, or to any stack or steer, or to any vegetable produce of such kind, and with such intent that if the offence were complete the offender would be guilty of felony and liable to be transported beyond the seas for his natural life, shall, although such building, vessel, mine, stack, steer, or vegetable produce be not actually set on fire, be guilty of felony, etc. (See 1861.)

1847. Under the Towns Police Clauses Act of this year-10 & 11 Vict. c. 89, sec. 30 -where that Act may apply, any person wilfully setting fire to a chimney is liable to a penalty not exceeding £5; and this does not exempt him from indictment for felony. [FIRE PROTECTION, 1847.]

1861.-By the Consolidating Act-24 & 25 Vict. c. 97-for amending the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to malicious injuries to property, a graduated scale of punishment is enacted for persons wilfully and maliciously setting fire to churches, dwelling-houses occupied and unoccupied, buildings, manufactories, farmeries, railway stations, public buildings, goods in buildings; or for attempting to set fire to the same. As also for injuries by explosive substances. The punishment of death was no longer extended to these crimes. Transportation, imprisonment, and whipping being substituted. This repealed the Act of 1846.

1865. Mr. Edwin Chadwick, C.B., in his Address on "Economy and Trade" before the Social Science Congress held in Sheffield this year, spoke of the "unguarded practice of ins.," and said that in the course of the inquiries he had conducted from time to time regarding water supply, loss of life in towns, etc., he "found that wilful fires, for the sake of ins. money, are far more frequent, especially in the metropolis, than is commonly supposed," adding:

In answer to my inquiries of Mr. Braidwood, the late Superintendent of the Fire Brigade in the metropolis, and from the best means of information possessed on the subject of the property insured there, I found that about one-half in value is insured. As, however, the larger masses of property in goods or warehouses are insured, it would follow that less than half the numbers of property are ins. But on looking over the fire returns I was struck with the fact, that two-thirds or 71 p.c. of the warehouses and contents were insured. How was this! that apparently most properties were lost, on which, according to the common theory, most prudence and care had been exercised by ins.? I never, if I can help it, adopt any important conclusions from statistics, without inquiring into the particulars which those statistics represent. I therefore interrogated Mr. Braidwood as to how, on any doctrine of chances, there could be more burnt of insured than of uninsured properties? He was extremely reluctant to give any public answers, and he spoke to me privately upon them; and what he said will now no longer compromise him. His restraint was fair, because officers conversant with classes of cases see more, and can judge of evidence in respect to them better than others, and arrive at sure conclusions themselves, which they may not be prepared to estab. by full technical evidence. His admission or declaration was that the difference was not accidental; that the brigade were regularly occupied in preventing the spread of fires, a large proportion of which they knew were wilful. They came to their conclusions from prima facie circumstantial evidence, as to the times and the modes of fires, the recency of ins.-the parties named being in debt or straightened circumstances-suspicions as to the quantities of the stock and furniture consumed-full and high ins. of old, tumbledown, or inconvenient premises-the immediate production of well-matured and complete plans for the rebuilding of the premises, which must have been prepared before the fire. He told me that, from the worthless state of some premises, and from the sorts of ins. effected upon them, he regularly expected to be called upon to prevent the spread of fires from them.

The preventive measures which Mr. Chadwick proposed have been spoken of under FIRE INQUESTS.

1867. Before the Parl. Committee which sat this year on the Protection of Life and Property against Fire, and the "best means to be adopted for ascertaining the causes and preventing the frequency of fires," evidence was given of a very startling character. Thus Mr. S. J. Fletcher, Sec. of Sun, after 52 years' experience in fire ins. bus., said that his impression, "after giving a great deal of attention to the subject, is that nearly one-third of the fires which occur are intentional, or the result of culpable carelessness" (1326); he afterwards said (1558):

I have endeavoured to get some further statistics together, and I have done everything which I possibly could to refresh my memory, and the conclusion at which I have arrived is, that the number of fires which are now actually pending, the origins of which I am perfectly satisfied were intentional, is far greater than ever occurred before in my experience. I cannot recollect any period of my long experience in which we have had so many intentional fires under investigation as there are at the present moment; in fact, that subject now occupies a very large portion of my time; and the onerous character of these inquiries is a sad drawback to the performance of my other duties. (1559.) We have very few statistics as to the origin of fires. As to the number of fires, they have increased very considerably.

Mr. Swanton, Supt. of the Lond. Salvage Corps, gave evidence before the same Committee, stating it to be his impression that there had been of late a large increase of incendiary fires. "There is no doubt of it" (1770). FIRES AND FIRE INS., STATISTICS Other witnesses testified to the same effect.

OF.

1872.-The Rep. of the Fire Asso. of Posen, an Eastern Province of Germany, where the bus. is under the control of Gov. officials, gives the following facts for this year. Its fires during the year were 764, of which 12 were known to have been caused